Sivaanandalahari -61

[Guest guest]

Sivaanandalahari -61 (5)continued from 61 (4)

 

Let us meditate on the parama kaashtai of the three bhakthis which

BhagavathpaadhaaL did siddhaantham as " chEthO:

vrutthirupEthyathishtathisadhaa " .

 

Those who does upaasana to ParamEswara holding on to the view that at no

time can one becomes Paramaathma, and even if he attains mOksha there would

be the bhEdam of Jeevaathma and Paramaathma - are described by the two

examples " ankOlam nijabeejasanthathi: rayaskaanthOpalam soochikaa " . AnkOla

seeds even when the reach the tree from which they came continue the idea of

separateness so also the needle that reached the magnet. In this way those

jeevaraasis that have anubhava buddhi that they are different from

ParamEswara cannot lend their aathmaprEmai to ParamEswara for aathmaprEma

can only be with oneself and not with an anyan. Yet they do consider

themselves to be dhukkaswaroopis because of maaya. In such a situation this

upaasana cannot be called the kaashtai (goal) of bhakthi.

 

Likewise, those who do upaasana to Bhagavaan holding on to the view that the

jeevaathma even when he unites with Paramaathma, they both cannot become one

but continue to hold to the conviction (pragnyaa) that even though he has

united with Paramaathma he would never become Paramaathma - are described by

the two examples " saadhvee naijavibhum lathaa kshithiruham " . Even though a

pathivrathaa reached her barthaa she has the pragnyai that she is

pathivrathaa and he is the bharthaa. In the same way the creeper even

though it winds itself to the tree has the pragnyai that it is different

from the one that supports it. So anyone holding to the view that a

jeevaathma is only an amsam of Paramaathmaa can only be said to have

ordinary bhakthi that does not have paramakaashtai. Even in aikyam there is

bhEdha buddhi in the jeevan and in his case also maayai has hidden the

aanandhaamsam. This must be clear on reflection. What is the gain out of

this different version of bhEdhagnyaanam? Only the complete destruction of

bhEdhagnaanam can achieve the total oneness is the view of the Vedhaanthis.

If aikyam is Sathyam there cannot be bhEdhagnaanam. If there is

bhEdhagnaanam that aikyam cannot be Sathyam because Sathyam can always be

One only. Just as if a person says: " I have seen a barren woman and she has

a child " , the world will not accept that statement, we cannot accept that in

the state of unity there can be bhEdhagnyaanam. So the aanandha one gets in

this unity cannot be the goal of bhakthi. It can never be.

 

After describing the saamaanya bhakthi with the four examples AachaaryaaL

takes up those who do upaasana to ParamEswara holding on to the view that

the jeevathma was already non-different from the nishkaLanga Paramasiva and

so much so would not be 'becoming' Paramasiva but in varthamaana kaalam

remains with the appearance of 'jeeva is different and Paramasiva is

different', the moola kaaraNam for which is moola agnyaana braanthi - are

described by the example " sindhu: sarivallabham " . To explain, the dharma

of a river is, howsoever it is dammed on its way, its object is to merge

with the ocean. Before it was a river it was only the ocean that went up as

cloud and it rained on the hill setting off this pravaaham of the river.

Until it gets back to the ocean it remains as a river and has its pragnyai

as a river but the very moment it merges into the river its nadhignyanam is

lost. No one can separate the water as 'this is nadhijalam and this is

samudhra jalam'.

 

The point of fact is that the jeevaathma has never in the past been

different from the faultless Paramasiva nor would we say that he would be

different in the future. But due to moola-agnaana braanthi in the present,

he considers himself different from Parameswara. MOksham is the destruction

of this moola-agnaana braanthi. Those who do such upaasana for the

destruction of this moola-agnaana braanthi are referred to by AachaaryaaL by

the example of ‘sindhu: sarithvallabham’.

 

The bhEdham (the multitudes we see) remains real because of the

bhEdhagnyaanam and only to those afflicted with bhEdhagnaanam comes the

importance of gnaanOpadEsam. Therefore the mahaavaakya " thaththwamasi " is

addressed to the agnyaani to tell him that he is Brahman and this

mahaavaakya is not to tell a gnaani that he is BrahmaN. this mahaavaakya

" thaththwamasi " says to the agnyaani: " Do not think that aathmaa is

different from Brahman. Do know that both are one and the same

'akhandaakaara aanandha vasthu'. Just because these two are one you should

not also think that there were two and those two are becoming one. You have

assumed there were two because of agnyaana. The fact of the matter is there

has never been two. "

 

(continued in 61 (6) )